General News Thread

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

If they have actually got away with bombing Iran's nuclear program without any really significant  consequences, then its hard to argue with.  The problem is we won't really know for a while.  Possibly years.

That's one problem, yes. 

 

And yet those areas of the press, with no regard for that or other nuance, seem to happily spread around that simplistic, shallow and reductive black and white "pick a side" morality that Trump and those who think like him embody. 

 

Hopefully not as many people will be taken in now as they were in the past. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

Trumps played a blinder here 🤣🤣

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Just a bizarre couple of weeks, nothing seems real anymore. What was the point in all of that? Despite the rhetoric, the US was obviously never going to invade, and nobody actually knows how degraded the enriched uranium is. That’s two wars in two months where it’s just basically been two pointless missile trade offs before stopping. Time for diplomacy again maybe?

Au contraire, a good foreign "intervention", if only brief, serves to distract from shite domestic policy decisions. Trump is counting on that as the point. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Trumps played a blinder here 🤣🤣

I think that would depend on factors we have no way of knowing are true or not. 

 

In any case, perhaps now he can get back to actually fulfilling his promises about the Ukraine war and the price of eggs, and other things like that. Or at least to lying through his teeth about fulfilling them. 

Edited 24 June 2025 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that would depend on factors we have no way of knowing are true or not. 

 

In any case, perhaps now he can get back to actually fulfilling his promises about the Ukraine war and the price of eggs, and other things like that. Or at least to lying through his teeth about fulfilling them. 

One would suggest he has no chance of ending the Ukraine war before neither side is in acceptable position, so he’s contrived this whole situation to make him look like peacemaker supreme.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

One would suggest he has no chance of ending the Ukraine war before neither side is in acceptable position, so he’s contrived this whole situation to make him look like peacemaker supreme.

A billion dollar fireworks show as a tool to boost ego is very much in character with the man, yes. 

[Sampson]

On the bbc it says Isreal has detected an Iranian missile just now so not sure the cease fire is holding. 
 

I tried to post the part from bbc, but for some reason it got hidden and deleted by a moderator so assumed there was some key word in it that the mods have banned.

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

On the bbc it says Isreal has detected an Iranian missile just now so not sure the cease fire is holding. 
 

I tried to post the part from bbc, but for some reason it got hidden and deleted by a moderator so assumed there was some key word in it that the mods have banned.

I keep doing that, I think there are several.  Sorry Mark!  Trying to stay on topic.

[Sampson]

According to BBC now Isreal accuses Iran of breaking cease fire and vows to “respond forcefully”

 

This cease fire lasted long…

[st albans fox]

51 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Just a bizarre couple of weeks, nothing seems real anymore. What was the point in all of that? Despite the rhetoric, the US was obviously never going to invade, and nobody actually knows how degraded the enriched uranium is. That’s two wars in two months where it’s just basically been two pointless missile trade offs before stopping. Time for diplomacy again maybe?

Must be some arm twisting going on behind the scenes 

 

but it’s all in line with what I was thinking yesterday evening after the ‘attack’ on Qatar 

 

assuming this ceasefire breakage and any response can be kept in check then the light at the end of the tunnel is still there.

[Md9]

17 minutes ago, Sampson said:

According to BBC now Isreal accuses Iran of breaking cease fire and vows to “respond forcefully”

 

This cease fire lasted long…

Every time he opens his mouth it sends a silly tweet something always happens after. Maybe he should wait a few hours before getting to excited 

[Alf Bentley]

13 hours ago, Lionator said:

Interesting that Macron has called the US strikes  illegal. No love lost currently between him and Trump. Our spineless government think that but daren’t say it as they’re scared to upset Trump while the German chancellor fully supports them. Weird times. 

 

10 hours ago, bovril said:

Isn't it just standard UK/France reaction to American foreign policy? 

 

Starmer has very different political views from Trump but our govt has adopted a political strategy of holding its nose and getting on with Trump as well as possible - because they see that strategy as being in the national interest. They can cite the mini-trade deal with the US as a modest but important gain from that. They'll also hope to exert a small amount of influence over Trump's foreign policy (much as Blair sought to take Bush down the UN route over Iraq - initially successfully, ultimately very unsuccessfully). Given the imbalance of power between US & UK and Trump's unpredictable, autocratic nature, any such influence will be minor - but not necessarily non-existent, as even under Trump the US likes to see and present itself as having allies, despite having the power to act alone.

 

Yes, I think it is pretty much "standard UK/France reaction to American foreign policy". For decades, the UK has sought to exert global influence above its standing by acting as a bridge between USA and Europe, staying close to both and having some degree of influence over both - which requires some biting of the tongue over disagreements with the US. Whereas, France has sought to exert global influence above its standing by being a/the leading power in Europe - which requires less "spineless" tongue biting with Trump.

 

Starmer's strategy for handling Trump has already put him into difficult positions - e.g. biting his tongue over illegal attacks on Iran. At some point, Trump may well act in a way that makes that strategy impossible and means Starmer has to choose sides between US and Europe. Worth adding that the UK's position is all the more invidious due to having voluntarily diminished our other position of potential international influence as one of the most influential nations in Europe, due to Brexit. Still, at least we got masses more money for the NHS and control of our borders, eh, Boris/Nigel? 

 

There's also the fact that France & UK have different systems of representation. Macron is French head of state, so his role is to symbolically represent France to the world (as well as leading foreign policy, but not most domestic policy - led by the French PM). Whereas, Starmer is UK head of govt, not head of state. His role is pure politics, foreign & domestic. Our head of state is King Charles, who was recently symbolically representing the UK to the world (and to Trump), in an understated way, by making an early visit to Canada under its new PM and making some carefully calibrated speeches about Canada's independent identity etc.

 

Starmer's strategy on Trump is high-risk and may yet back-fire. But people suggesting he should just call Trump out or openly declare his actions illegal are being naive as to consequences.

I mean, if I walked into a pub and bumped into the biggest, most violent, most unpredictable criminal in Leicester, it might be "non-spineless" of me to tell him what I think of him and his criminality, but it might not be a wise strategy with regard to consequences...

[The Year Of The Fox]

52 minutes ago, Sampson said:

On the bbc it says Isreal has detected an Iranian missile just now so not sure the cease fire is holding. 
 

I tried to post the part from bbc, but for some reason it got hidden and deleted by a moderator so assumed there was some key word in it that the mods have banned.

Happened with mine yesterday too with Daily Mail reporting the air strikes on Qatar

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Starmer has very different political views from Trump but our govt has adopted a political strategy of holding its nose and getting on with Trump as well as possible - because they see that strategy as being in the national interest. They can cite the mini-trade deal with the US as a modest but important gain from that. They'll also hope to exert a small amount of influence over Trump's foreign policy (much as Blair sought to take Bush down the UN route over Iraq - initially successfully, ultimately very unsuccessfully). Given the imbalance of power between US & UK and Trump's unpredictable, autocratic nature, any such influence will be minor - but not necessarily non-existent, as even under Trump the US likes to see and present itself as having allies, despite having the power to act alone.

 

Yes, I think it is pretty much "standard UK/France reaction to American foreign policy". For decades, the UK has sought to exert global influence above its standing by acting as a bridge between USA and Europe, staying close to both and having some degree of influence over both - which requires some biting of the tongue over disagreements with the US. Whereas, France has sought to exert global influence above its standing by being a/the leading power in Europe - which requires less "spineless" tongue biting with Trump.

 

Starmer's strategy for handling Trump has already put him into difficult positions - e.g. biting his tongue over illegal attacks on Iran. At some point, Trump may well act in a way that makes that strategy impossible and means Starmer has to choose sides between US and Europe. Worth adding that the UK's position is all the more invidious due to having voluntarily diminished our other position of potential international influence as one of the most influential nations in Europe, due to Brexit. Still, at least we got masses more money for the NHS and control of our borders, eh, Boris/Nigel? 

 

There's also the fact that France & UK have different systems of representation. Macron is French head of state, so his role is to symbolically represent France to the world (as well as leading foreign policy, but not most domestic policy - led by the French PM). Whereas, Starmer is UK head of govt, not head of state. His role is pure politics, foreign & domestic. Our head of state is King Charles, who was recently symbolically representing the UK to the world (and to Trump), in an understated way, by making an early visit to Canada under its new PM and making some carefully calibrated speeches about Canada's independent identity etc.

 

Starmer's strategy on Trump is high-risk and may yet back-fire. But people suggesting he should just call Trump out or openly declare his actions illegal are being naive as to consequences.

I mean, if I walked into a pub and bumped into the biggest, most violent, most unpredictable criminal in Leicester, it might be "non-spineless" of me to tell him what I think of him and his criminality, but it might not be a wise strategy with regard to consequences...

No doubt. 

 

However, for me it's very much a matter of debate as to whether the consequences of calling him out now, or letting him have the run of the farm with all that entails, will be more severe. Especially on certain particular topics. 

 

Perhaps Starmer is trying something in between the two (again, varying based on case by case) which is, as you say, high risk, but is probably the best way to go. 

[st albans fox]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No doubt. 

 

However, for me it's very much a matter of debate as to whether the consequences of calling him out now, or letting him have the run of the farm with all that entails, will be more severe. Especially on certain particular topics. 

 

Perhaps Starmer is trying something in between the two (again, varying based on case by case) which is, as you say, high risk, but is probably the best way to go. 

There were some reports yesterday that the Americans had asked starmer if Britain wanted to take part in Saturday night’s attack and starmer had passed on it. 

are we to join the dots that trump doing the dirty work with the MOP’s gave him leverage to force BN to agree to a ceasefire sooner than he’d have liked???. And if that’s not the case and there are strategic reasons for BN’s decision (eg. defensive weaponry running low ) then trump retains that serious leverage re events over the weekend. 

[hejammy]

49 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Happened with mine yesterday too with Daily Mail reporting the air strikes on Qatar

To be fair, you should get a permanent ban if you try to put a Daily Mail article on here....

[The Year Of The Fox]

6 minutes ago, hejammy said:

To be fair, you should get a permanent ban if you try to put a Daily Mail article on here....

It’s no worse than The Guardian 

[Sampson]

I’m not a fan of the Mail but if it was just a factual article saying “there’s been a strike” I don’t see a problem. I assume there’s not a ban on links so I imagine there’s some keyword filter in there 

[hejammy]

18 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

It’s no worse than The Guardian 

I mean I would beg to differ, but I suppose each to their own. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

No doubt. 

 

However, for me it's very much a matter of debate as to whether the consequences of calling him out now, or letting him have the run of the farm with all that entails, will be more severe. Especially on certain particular topics. 

 

Perhaps Starmer is trying something in between the two (again, varying based on case by case) which is, as you say, high risk, but is probably the best way to go. 

 

Yes, I presume Starmer is trying to influence US decisions in his contacts with Trump. He was openly advocating de-escalation before the US bombings, but clearly didn't succeed in influencing Trump on that one! Ultimately, the US is economically, politically and militarily massively more powerful than the UK, so any influence will be minor....but not necessarily worthless, if it brings the odd benefit for the UK on trade or slightly moderates Trump on international issues. But given Trump's nature, open disagreement may become unavoidable at some point.

 

As regards "letting him have the run of the farm", he effectively has that already on a global level due to US political, economic and military power - and to his 99% control of the democratic levers back home. The UK and others can only hope to exert limited influence. The challenge to his running of the farm will surely have to happen domestically in the US, whether it's through one or other element of the democratic system (if that persists) - Congress, courts, mid-term elections - or through popular discontent, potentially even civil war?

 

Given the extent of US power and of Trump's current control over that power, I'm not sure there's an effective way for the rest of the world to challenge him. Other countries may exert some limited influence, but I suspect the severity of the consequences will depend largely on what Trump chooses to do (highly unpredictable) and on what happens in US politics - namely whether he remains in power, further increases his power or is subject to a successful challenge internally in the US...

[Sampson]

Related to the different viewpoints of France, UK and Germany. I reckon this poll would’ve looked radically different even 4 years ago where I think “very unlikely” would be by far the highest answer and now is less than 10%.

https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/52113-many-europeans-and-americans-think-world-war-3-is-imminent

 

 

 

Edited 24 June 2025 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I presume Starmer is trying to influence US decisions in his contacts with Trump. He was openly advocating de-escalation before the US bombings, but clearly didn't succeed in influencing Trump on that one! Ultimately, the US is economically, politically and militarily massively more powerful than the UK, so any influence will be minor....but not necessarily worthless, if it brings the odd benefit for the UK on trade or slightly moderates Trump on international issues. But given Trump's nature, open disagreement may become unavoidable at some point.

 

As regards "letting him have the run of the farm", he effectively has that already on a global level due to US political, economic and military power - and to his 99% control of the democratic levers back home. The UK and others can only hope to exert limited influence. The challenge to his running of the farm will surely have to happen domestically in the US, whether it's through one or other element of the democratic system (if that persists) - Congress, courts, mid-term elections - or through popular discontent, potentially even civil war?

 

Given the extent of US power and of Trump's current control over that power, I'm not sure there's an effective way for the rest of the world to challenge him. Other countries may exert some limited influence, but I suspect the severity of the consequences will depend largely on what Trump chooses to do (highly unpredictable) and on what happens in US politics - namely whether he remains in power, further increases his power or is subject to a successful challenge internally in the US...

Astute, as always. 

 

Speaking personally, any kind of pushback against the man and the vast majority of his policies from whatever source is welcomed, because it all adds up and the likely consequences of giving him a free hand are so dire.

[hejammy]

Trump on Live TV!

 

Warning - NSFW due to swearing

 

 

 

Edited 24 June 2025 by hejammy

[Tommy G]

24 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Trump on Live TV!

 

Warning - NSFW due to swearing

 

 

 

He's bang on for once

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Trump on Live TV!

 

Warning - NSFW due to swearing

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

He's bang on for once

A very good case of "takes one to know one".